This motion is the beginning of a policy development process. 
If the GNSO passes this request, then ICANN staff is obligated to 
produce an issues report, and once it does that a PDP can begin.
(Take note, prospective GNSO Council members of the future!)

Why did I mention the MoU? Just to whack ICANN's management
on the head a bit. To point out that it is something they agreed to
do, and yet have taken no action on. 

>>> Marc Schneiders <[log in to unmask]> 10/21/03 02:54PM >>>
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, at 10:57 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> This motion is intended to be considered at the Carthage
> Meeting:
>
> "In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the
> Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of
> Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO Council requests that the Staff
> Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation and implementation
> of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection criteria for
> new TLD registries."

In case we are to discuss this motion on this list before the meeting
(which very few of us will be able to attend):

1. Why is the MoU in the text? I know ICANN cannot decide new TLDs on
its own. Still, it now has a 3 year contract. The problem is not the
MoU or the US Gov, is it? The problem is that ICANN does not set up a
procedure. Why emphasize the MoU?

2. I would like to emphasize more that it is a long term thing. A
procedure that is valid for 3 years. So that also orgs have enough
time to apply. Not just companies, that can hire lots of people to do
things fast.

For the rest, I am all for it. We should try to open the name space
ASAP.

 >